Dictionaries are often treated as the final arbiter in arguments over a word’s meaning, but they are not always well suited for settling disputes. The lexicographer’s role is to explain how words are (or have been) actually used, not how some may feel that they should be used, and they say nothing about the intrinsic nature of the thing named or described by a word, much less the significance it may have for individuals. When discussing concepts like veganism, therefore, it is prudent to recognize that quoting from a dictionary is unlikely to either mollify or persuade the person with whom one is arguing.
The lexicographer’s role is to explain how words are (or have been) actually used, not how some may feel that they should be used
You interpreted this to mean that “how [you] may feel that they should be used” is more correct than “how words are (or have been) actually used.” That’s on you, dude.
Just because you can’t be mollified or persuaded doesn’t mean you’re correct; otherwise maga would be the champions of debate.
You’re the authority on what you meant, not on what you said. You can’t tell me to reject the evidence of my eyes.
Either way, it doesn’t matter, because you’re not the authority on the English language, words have meanings, and your definition of diet was simply wrong. Just because it means something different to you doesn’t mean the whole world has to bend itself around your delusions.
Veganism is a diet. Whether or not it’s also a philosophy doesn’t change that.
Dictionaries are often treated as the final arbiter in arguments over a word’s meaning, but they are not always well suited for settling disputes. The lexicographer’s role is to explain how words are (or have been) actually used, not how some may feel that they should be used, and they say nothing about the intrinsic nature of the thing named or described by a word, much less the significance it may have for individuals. When discussing concepts like veganism, therefore, it is prudent to recognize that quoting from a dictionary is unlikely to either mollify or persuade the person with whom one is arguing.
–
marriam webster
“Dictionaries don’t give the correct definition of words; how I feel a word should exclusively be used is what ultimately matters” -commie
this is a strawman. prima facie bad faith
Not at all.
You interpreted this to mean that “how [you] may feel that they should be used” is more correct than “how words are (or have been) actually used.” That’s on you, dude.
Just because you can’t be mollified or persuaded doesn’t mean you’re correct; otherwise maga would be the champions of debate.
no. I didn’t.
That’s exactly what happened, and any other explanation renders that quote irrelevant to the discussion.
I’m the authority on how I inerpreted it. you’re simply wrong
You’re the authority on what you meant, not on what you said. You can’t tell me to reject the evidence of my eyes.
Either way, it doesn’t matter, because you’re not the authority on the English language, words have meanings, and your definition of diet was simply wrong. Just because it means something different to you doesn’t mean the whole world has to bend itself around your delusions.
Veganism is a diet. Whether or not it’s also a philosophy doesn’t change that.
just saying things doesn’t make them true.
I quoted the same lexicographer you did.
If you quote something without properly annotating it in an academic setting, it can be considered plagiarism.
You used nothing to indicate that that block of text was actually a quotation.
this is a forum and I linked to the source
I’ll make this simple for you. In standard English, quotations are normally annotated like this:
“Quote.”
On forums, there is an additional way of annotating quotations and it looks like this:
You did neither.
you’re not my professor and this isn’t an academic institution.
go fuck yourself
Wah, commie’s upset because he can’t construct a proper argument
that’s not what’s happening